While writing a post for True/Slant about child porn enthusiasts who used a private social network to trade their kiddie pics, we stumbled across the website of Lindeman, Alvarado, & Frye. The Texas criminal defense firm has a kiddie porn practice group.
We think the photo accompanying the description of the group is a little off….
UPDATE: Other practice groups include disturbing images, as pointed out by commenters.
The firm’s criminal defense practice represents:
Clients charged with a full range of sex crimes in which children were the alleged victims, including: Child sexual assault, Child sexual abuse or molestation, Indecency with a child, Possession of child pornography (kiddie porn), Internet stalking or sexual solicitation of a minor.
Here’s the “Child Sexual Assault & Internet Solicitiation [sic] of a Minor” page:
Does the firm really need to include a picture of a potential victim of the crime? This is like using a photo of a bullet-ridden body to advertise murder defense, or photos of the mangled victims of a car accident on a DUI defense attorney’s website.
At least she’s clothed…
UPDATE: As noted by commenters, there are some other questionable images. Here’s a few of them:
For defense against Rape & Sexual Assault:
And for drug charges:
This one may be the worst. For defense against domestic violence charges:
Gavel bang on those last three, commenters 17, 27, and 44.
Kiddie porn enthusiasts make use of private social networking site [True/Slant]
Child Sexual Assault & Internet Solicitiation [sic] of a Minor [Lindeman Alvarado & Frye]
It’s always the children’s fault, isn’t it Mystal?
The picture is probably of the firm’s receptionist who thought she could pull off the “minor look” in pollyanna pigtails.
You don’t understand. That’s one of the firm’s attorneys. “How could this precious moppet defend a vicious child molester?” the jury will think. And LAF racks up another win!
Dude – Kash wrote this.
How can these “attorneys” look at themselves in the mirror after helping Chester “The Childmolester” get off again? God will judge them.
Mom?
Finally, a funny Kash post.
“Does the firm really need to include a picture of a potential victim of the crime? This is like using a photo of a bullet-ridden body to advertise murder defense or photos of the mangled victims of a car accident on a DUI defense attorney’s website.”
Hey, look! More blatant self-promotion from the ATL crew!
With prosecutors charging minors for kiddie porn based upon them “sexting” pictures of themselves to friends, who says that the picture isn’t that of a defendant?
It is surprising that it took that long for a firm to start a dedicated practice group in this field. Our society, succumbing to insanity, adds new crimes to the list by the minute, expanding the definition of “sex offense” to include whatever an unscrupulous prosecutor could imagine.
These people are fucking disgusting. Just when I think there are no lower depths a lawyer can sink to, something like this comes along and lowers the bar even further.
Why use the photo? You dumbass, because kiddie porn perverts will enjoy looking at it. They will get the message that the law firm is “one of them.” You can bet your tiny dick that the girl isn’t underage, though.
Well, at least attorneys can stop wondering why the profession has such a bad reputation. I understand that everyone has a right to a defense, but advertising like this is not tasteful in the least bit.
10 – Which of “Child sexual assault, Child sexual abuse or molestation, Indecency with a child, Possession of child pornography (kiddie porn), Internet stalking or sexual solicitation of a minor” do you consider to have been insanely added to the definition of sex offense through the imagination of an unscrupulous prosecutor?
Why are white people so sexually deviant?
I think this is in pretty poor taste and I’m an asshole. Good luck getting out of a federal kiddie porn charge. The sentencing guidelines for those crimes are some of the steepest in the book.
Here’s the picture they use for garden variety sexual assault:
http://www.lindemanfrye.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Rape-Sexual-Assault.shtml
What disgusting pieces of shit these people are.
14: As lawyers know, every single word in a definition is subject to interpretation. If your family has a photo album, made a few decades ago, you better burn it.
Is that girl supposed to look like Andy Samberg with a wig?
ATL: This firm belongs on the Hall of Shame. Please cast my vote for this firm for permanent inclusion on the Hall of Shame.
I find nothing distasteful about this ad. If people would travel outside the US they would understand how coddled your eyeballs are.
I can’t help but notice that while they have women/women of color posing with them in their photos, the “lawyers” in this firm are all men. Way to demonstrate your lack of inner barometer of appropriateness, guys. Sick sick sick…
omg i think you need to put a [NSFW] link on this post.
that picture makes me feel dirty (and like i’m potentially about to get busted by the FBI)
How many nasty emails do you think this law firm will get as a result of this post?
I hope a lot.
9 ftw
-not 9
fap fap fap fap spooge.
That is all
Family Violence is also a winner:
http://www.lindemanfrye.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Family-Violence.shtml
Call us, we’ll shut your abused kid up!
Lolita, light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. Lo-lee-ta: the tip of the tongue taking a trip of three steps down the palate to tap, at three, on the teeth. Lo. Lee. Ta.
That is a picture of a laid-off first year.
And the best part — they clarified the term “possession of child pornography” by putting “kiddie porn” in paretheses. Glad to hear they know proper child porn lingo.
Real nice, guys. Real nice.
Yikes! Both those pics needs to come down, fast.
But I’ll be the first to say that this firm serves an important function. I doubt there are many lawyers that will defend these types of cases. I know I wouldn’t.
Check out the family violence picture
http://www.lindemanfrye.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Family-Violence.shtml
pretty intimidating if you are a 7 year old.
I really expected that all the attorneys at that firm would look like Kip from Napoleon Dynamite.
Gross.
27: OMG wtf is wrong with these people?!?! (although the kiddie porn one is way worse)
I wonder how one of those sleazy attorneys would feel about their clients if their minor daughters were sexual assault victims. These guys deserve to burn in hell.
How is this any different from a public defender? Would you bring the same wrath on the PD?
37 –
Public defenders serve an important public function, not to mention they don’t explicitly market themselves as a defender of accused child molesters and kiddie porn dealers.
These guys undoubtedly have the worst taste of any lawyer I’ve every seen. It’s disgusting.
This is totally fucked up and these assholes will burn in hell.
Those pictures make no sense – this is the defense side!
I wonder who the parents are of these kids that were used in these pictures. Also, were these pictures taken solely for this firms ads, or did these pictures already exist and were purchased by the firm to use on its website.
The photos of the weed and cut coke + credit card are amazing.
“This is like using a photo of a bullet-ridden body to advertise murder defense or photos of the mangled victims of a car accident on a DUI defense attorney’s website.”
Your analogies are not even close. If you want to attract kiddie porn fans, what better “bait” than “bait”.
Hey young associates, this is what a real bonus was back in the ’80s:
http://www.lindemanfrye.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Interstate-International-Drug-Charges.shtml
The ’80s guy can verify.
Yeah, I agree with 40.
I don’t understand why they would put a picture of a rape victim on the sexual assault page. Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to put up a picture of a black guy who was wrongly accused by a racist police dept? Or something along those lines? Seems more realistic for a Texas firm…
i’d tap.
Wow, those rape and domestic abuse service pictures are way worse.
“Does your victim look like THIS? Call us!”
Fucking reprehensible.
Who’s the winner that let his/her daughter pose for this?
Disturbing on so many levels.
F- terrible. Those attorneys should be sanctioned for something.
49, for what? Sounds like you need to crack open the MRPC. Do they not teach that at Cooley?
38 — i concur that the advertising isn’t the most tasteful, but it got ppl talking which is probably what they want in the first place. the fact that they have a practice area re: these crimes is understandable; they are trying to run a business and make those who are charged/accussed know what resources or specializations are available.
overall, i’d posit that the criminal defense bar serves just as important a function as the pd, but that’s for another discussion versus the atl comments section.
-37.
Wow.
24…already sent an email myself.
What idiots did this firm hire to do their advertising?
I now everyone has the right to a lawyer, but these photos are just beyond poor taste, especially the one showing a hand clamped over the child’s mouth…it’s just sick.
50: First, Happy Thanksgiving to you too. Second, I’m a v15 associate and not a Cooley grad but thanks for the attempted put down. Third, are you a member of the Texas Bar and are you really sure the bar can’t sanction or otherwise formally reprimand in some form its attorneys for such conduct?
Their website is unreal…check out the rest of it. The rape one is way over the line. Speaking of lines, check out the cocaine defense section.
Website is an LOL a minute; cocaine briefcase ftw.
Also, still laughing at 3’s comment about the moppet defense lawyer.
First to notice that the firm spelled “soliciation” wrong. They wrote “solicitiation of a minor” in the caption to the first picture. Proofread much?
As bad as this picture is, this isn’t nearly the worst one. Check out “Sex Crimes” (picture of a little boy shedding a tear), and “Rape and Sexual Assault” (picture of woman in fetal position crying). This is absolutely deplorable.
Whoops didnt see the update. But the “sex crimes” one is pretty bad too.
59
Isn’t “heroine” with an “e” at the end a female hero, and not an illegal narcotic?
http://www.lindemanfrye.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Cocaine-Meth-or-Heroine-Delivery.shtml
You guys are all so thin-skinned. There’s nothing offensive about these pictures. In fact, they are pretty boring.
The firm’s motto:
“Hire us, we’re bigger assholes than you are!”
“Hire us. We’ve been there, done that.”
Hey 55, Texas lawyer here. The truly disturbing thing is that the state bar has to approve all ads before they are placed. When our firm had our website redesigned, we had to submit it to the bar for approval both in electronic and printed form.
So, no, I don’t think there’s anything volative of the state ethics rules. But, yes, it is quite disgusting.
isn’t this firm one of Haynes & Boone’s satellite offices?
65 – Is there some e-mail one can send complaints to?
They were probably stock photos some web developer used for sites catering to the other side of the aisle. Like the woman cowering picture is probably a stock photo for a women’s shelter site etc. Still the firm should know enough to take them down
@61 – that might be an intentional mistake. Perhaps they are saying that they have both a human and drug trafficking defense practice.
65 here.
I would call the Attorney Ethics Helpline to find out how to lodge a complaint. http://tinyurl.com/89fwa The Helpline number is (800)532-3947and is operated from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. I have no idea whether or not that would prove productive.
Err . . . the site design seems to be credited to “FindLaw, a Thompson Reuters business.”
i love the cocaine one.
it’s like an admission of guilt!
I don’t really find the images distasteful. I just don’t understand how they’re supposed to appeal to potential customers.
58 – you did too. “Soliciation”? Solicitation!
On top of being insensitive and tasteless, in on place on their page the refer to the drug “Heroine.” Worse yet, one of the lawyers appears to have a mullet.
I don’t know…I think the probation violation photo is pretty awesome. http://www.lindemanfrye.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Probation-Violation.shtml
Are they hiring?
Where do I send my res?
- Unemployed and beyond caring…sorry.
31: agree competely. I’m a white-collar guy who did a rape case once. Could never do it again. I also know a local prominent defense attorney (former senior AUSA, highly respected) who got dinged for a spot on the federal bench by the local political hacks because he represented (CJA) a guy in a kiddie porn case and did a good job. Weak.
65/70: 55 here. Thanks for the explanation and info.
These guys are no worse than corporate lawyers are. You just hate them because you don’t perceive criminal defense as being “prestigious”.
Agree with 80.
Just waiting for Howrey to put up pictures of senators having sex, S&C putting pictures of executives looting bags of money, and Weil throwing Chrysler workers to the ground in bankruptcy.
Its just as shameful. Only accepted.
I wonder if the website generates any business for them anyway- surely, not much at all. Perhaps they see it as a way to get themselves some referrals.
Even in a city like Houston, there can’t be more than a small number of people making good money practicing criminal defense.
78: I don’t feel sorry for your friend. I don’t want criminal defense lawyers on the bench, as a rule they make a mockery out of everything they touch.
While I’m at it I have another rule of thumb: ex-cops make bad lawyers.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves and to have council to fight charges. They defend people who are accused of having or distributing child pornography, and those who are accused have a presumption of innocence until they are convicted.
Believe me, you’d be very glad that these law firms and services existed if you were charged with one of these crimes. It could be that someone else was mooching your wifi that you didn’t realize was unprotected or someone stole your credit card, or even some family member or friend or co-worker used your computer without your permission.
Believe it or not, not everyone who is arrested and charged with a given crime actually committed it. That’s the whole reason you’re allowed a defense.
That last image really looks like they’re advertising that they will silence the testimony of the victims. That’s repulsive.
Ps. 83, an attorney can defend these types of allegations without advertising his services with photos of women posed like little girls (to titilate his potential customers?), battered women, etc.
65,
Apparently you haven’t actually seen the advertising rules in Texas. Websites and other broadcast media advertising need not be “approved” before the advertising piece is disseminated to the public. There is a requirement that you file a form when the website is launched with the link and a couple of copies of the landing page, but nothing else is required unless requested by the advertising review board. This is pretty risque, but I’m don’t think it really runs afoul of any of the advertising rules contained in section 7.
I like it!
Alright: the photo for the Money Laundering section is actually…money in a clothes dryer.
If that’s what they think money laundering is, then their clients are in real trouble.
there’s nothing wrong with these photos. the same people who object probably have a problem with defendants in criminal cases having lawyers at all.
As a former web developer, I can tell you exactly what happened. They hired an web firm to create their website. The designer, not knowing anything about the law or reputation tried to pick images that were relevant to the various crimes – with resulting consequences. Also, a web developer probably wrote the copy and nobody at the firm wanted to proofread because they couldn’t count it as a billable hour.
I’m frankly more disturbed by the fact that they couldn’t be bothered to proofread their website. Doesn’t exactly breed confidence in your clients.
Also, as I was going through the practice areas I bet myself $10 before I clicked that the picture for money laundering was money in a washing machine…http://www.lindemanfrye.com/Criminal-Defense-Overview/Money-Laundering.shtml
Why is there no section for Orc crimes?
Zug Zug
While firms such as this serve a valuable function in the justice system, I would think that they would design their website so as to convince their clients of the competence of the attorneys, rather than remind them of the enormity of their heinous crimes.
Our website has been up for over a year, with thousands of visitors.
Our site has been featured as one of the “best” criminal defense
lawyer websites around. And, for all that time, and out of those thousands
of visitors, we’ve never had a complaint about the content or the photos on
the site, let alone have we been accused of using “kiddie porn” to try to attract clients.
When we got our first comment which lead to the ATL posting, I immediately contacted
our representative at FindLaw and asked that the photographs be replaced.
That was Wednesday late afternoon before the Thanksgiving holiday.
Those photos will be replaced Monday.
All of us here at the firm have reflected on what may have gone “wrong.”
We know we reviewed the text of the site, but we did not review the “live”
site once it went up with the photos chosen by the developers. We thought
that by retaining FindLaw, a Thomson Reuters company, we would avoid
anything such as this.
For the record, none of the photos are “kiddie porn” or, taken by themselves,
pornographic or anything of the sort. Looking at them in context, we can see
where some folks would question their use and propriety.
So, the photos are coming down.
We understand that many of the comments we’ve received from some folks
arise because of who we are — criminal defense lawyers — and what we do –
defend persons accused of crimes. For who we are and what we do, we will
not apologize.
For those who were genuinely offended because they honestly believed the
photos to be insensitive and inappropriate, we do apologize and, as we said,
we will change those photos as soon as we can and ensure that this does not
happen again.
I think that Mark Bennett said it best on the blog “Defending People,” at bennettandbennett.com:
“I know Jim Lindeman, Gil Alvarado, and Brad Frye—all good lawyers—and I’m pretty comfortable
saying that none of them designed their website like this, nor would they have.
At the bottom of each page of their website it’s branded a “FirmSite by FindLaw.” ”
“What is it that Turkewitz says? Oh, yes: “outsourcing marketing = outsourcing ethics.”
And what’s my addition to that? “Outsourcing marketing = outsourcing reputation.”
FindLaw has moved on from its cookie-cutter websites, and in the process has made
Jim, Gil, and Brad minor stars of the blawgosphere.”
We appreciate everyone’s comments — both constructive and otherwise.
We will endeavor to ensure that we never repeat this occurrence and we
will try to ensure that our site, just as our practice of law and our personal
conduct, is above reproach and reflects well on our brothers and sisters
in the profession.
Brad Frye
Jim Lindeman
Gilbert Alvarado
Lindeman, Alvarado & Frye
So your explanation is that you never even bothered to review your own website…. I guess that probably was the only excuse you could throw out there (the alternative was “yes we reviewed it, and we LIKED those photos!”). This fails on all accounts- first, given how important websites are – to the extent that you yourselves bragged about how highly regarded and heavily trafficked it is – and the money that was paid to design it (and yes, douchebags like you would never pay the web designer’s invoice without reviewing the final product), I simply don’t believe you. However, let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend you’re telling the truth, this failure to review your own advertising materials points to a shocking level of carelessness to the extent that I can’t imagine why any client with a shred of intelligence would trust you with their defense.
How about this theory- you reviewed the site and you liked it, and you decided that its overall content would attract just the kind of business you’re out there trolling for.
Looks like they have replaced a couple of offending pictures.
94 raises good points in response to the note from the firm, but should not have responded to douchbagery with even more douchbagery. I think everyone has to agree that it entirely implausible that no one at the firm ever looked at its website. It is regrettable that 94 had to be so uncivil in making that observation.
I appreciate that the offending photos have been replaced; however, what is essentiall a “my secretary made a mistake” defense is, well, weak.
I read motions and briefs before filing, and certainly “proof” any advertisement before permitting its publication.
Thus, the firm looks bad for posting the offending (and they certainly are) pictures or failing to monitor what is being put out in their name. It isn’t anyone’s fault but the partners.
93: Visitors to your site have been jerking off to its creepy-as-shit pictures. Not really a testament to your lawyering.
I wonder what the photo for civil rights law was before it changed. I’m saddened that our profession includes lawyers who can’t check their own website but think they can defend people charged with murder.
Anyone wonder how many innocent people have been convicted by jurors who assumed that these guys represent no one but the most egregiously guilty scum available. WTF kind of idiot would put this crap on the web where, in any trial that lasts more than a day, every juror will see or hear about it (at the latest) by lunch on day 2?
You pay someone to design a website, you’re responsible for what gets put up. Period. If you didn’t review the final product…still your responsibility. I have no beef with criminal defense work. Using images of victimization to promote your business is sleazy.
FINDLAW DID IT!
Er, over a year ago.
Er, and we got all these hits.
Er, and we never looked at the website. That has been up for a year. And had all those hits.
Well, we did, but only at the washing machine full of money. MONEY LAUNDERING! Get it?!? Hahahaha. That’s a good one.
“Why are white people so sexually deviant?”
the same reason blacks are so violent and asian’s just can’t drive to save their own lives.
I wonder what Lindeman’s GPA was at Principia College. One of America’s Finest Christian Science Liberal Arts Colleges. http://www.prin.edu
The Constitutionality and Legality of the arrest and or enforcement of any Law even if it was only to issue a Traffic Ticket is the question of discussion here.
Has anyone from this Law Firm been arrested for anything? Or is someone just peeved because they did not think of this angle themselves.
Anyone can challenge any Ticket, Arrest and or Incarceration on the grounds that they were not constitutionally legally arrested or not constitutionally legally issued a Traffic Ticket by proper authority.
Please allow me to explain.
Recently in a College Law class that I was taking I asked the Professor who is a Jurist Doctorate in Law and had been a Lawyer for 20 years and a Professor for 10 years the following question;
What in the United States Constitution gives any level of government the Constitutionally Legal Right to create Law Enforcement Agencies and or Departments and for them to enforce the Laws of the United States?
His answer was the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution which states;
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Professor claims that because the United States Constitution does not specifically delegate the authority to the United States (Union) to Enforce (envoke) the Law then this authority has been given over to the States because the United States Constitution also says “nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
My Law Professor stated that this is what he was taught in the Law School that he attended and that this is what is taught in all Law Schools and Police Academies. Therefore it must be true.
My problem here is that in the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 says “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
As it is clearly stated that “The Congress shall have Power…. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute (enforce) the Laws of the Union (United States)”.
You may use this defense in any Court against any Ticket issued you as well as against any charge that you have been Arrested for.
If you were not arrested by the Militia when called forth to execute the Laws of the Union then you were not constitutionally legally arrested.
We are taking into particular interest here in this subject matter from the lowest level of Law Enforcement being the Village and or Township Police to City Police, County or Parish Police or Sheriff, State Police or Troopers and of course Federal levels which include U.S. Marshall, F.B.I., D.E.A., Homeland Security, Secret Service, N.S.A., C.I.A. and any other secret Police that may be in existence for those conspiracy theorists who may be reading this.
None of these Law Enforcement Agencies and or Law Enforcement Departments is Constitutionally Legal to enforce any Laws.
The United States Constitution delegates solely the right of Law enforcement to the Militia and only when Congress calls them forth to do so.
Disclaimer:
You are welcome to test this understanding of the Law and the United States Constitution at your own risk. I denounce and refuse any and all liability as to someone else’s actions that they may take after reading this my understanding of the Law and the United States Constitution.
The Constitutionality and Legality of the arrest and or enforcement of any Law even if it was only to issue a Traffic Ticket is the question of discussion here.
Has anyone from this Law Firm been arrested for anything? Or is someone just peeved because they did not think of this angle themselves.
Anyone can challenge any Ticket, Arrest and or Incarceration on the grounds that they were not constitutionally legally arrested or not constitutionally legally issued a Traffic Ticket by proper authority.
Please allow me to explain.
Recently in a College Law class that I was taking I asked the Professor who is a Jurist Doctorate in Law and had been a Lawyer for 20 years and a Professor for 10 years the following question;
What in the United States Constitution gives any level of government the Constitutionally Legal Right to create Law Enforcement Agencies and or Departments and for them to enforce the Laws of the United States?
His answer was the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution which states;
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Professor claims that because the United States Constitution does not specifically delegate the authority to the United States (Union) to Enforce (envoke) the Law then this authority has been given over to the States because the United States Constitution also says “nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
My Law Professor stated that this is what he was taught in the Law School that he attended and that this is what is taught in all Law Schools and Police Academies. Therefore it must be true.
My problem here is that in the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 says “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
As it is clearly stated that “The Congress shall have Power…. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute (enforce) the Laws of the Union (United States)”.
You may use this defense in any Court against any Ticket issued you as well as against any charge that you have been Arrested for.
If you were not arrested by the Militia when called forth to execute the Laws of the Union then you were not constitutionally legally arrested.
We are taking into particular interest here in this subject matter from the lowest level of Law Enforcement being the Village and or Township Police to City Police, County or Parish Police or Sheriff, State Police or Troopers and of course Federal levels which include U.S. Marshall, F.B.I., D.E.A., Homeland Security, Secret Service, N.S.A., C.I.A. and any other secret Police that may be in existence for those conspiracy theorists who may be reading this.
None of these Law Enforcement Agencies and or Law Enforcement Departments is Constitutionally Legal to enforce any Laws.
The United States Constitution delegates solely the right of Law enforcement to the Militia and only when Congress calls them forth to do so.
Disclaimer:
You are welcome to test this understanding of the Law and the United States Constitution at your own risk. I denounce and refuse any and all liability as to someone else’s actions that they may take after reading this my understanding of the Law and the United States Constitution.
The Constitutionality and Legality of the arrest and or enforcement of any Law even if it was only to issue a Traffic Ticket is the question of discussion here.
Has anyone from this Law Firm been arrested for anything? Or is someone just peeved because they did not think of this angle themselves.
Anyone can challenge any Ticket, Arrest and or Incarceration on the grounds that they were not constitutionally legally arrested or not constitutionally legally issued a Traffic Ticket by proper authority.
Please allow me to explain.
Recently in a College Law class that I was taking I asked the Professor who is a Jurist Doctorate in Law and had been a Lawyer for 20 years and a Professor for 10 years the following question;
What in the United States Constitution gives any level of government the Constitutionally Legal Right to create Law Enforcement Agencies and or Departments and for them to enforce the Laws of the United States?
His answer was the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution which states;
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
The Professor claims that because the United States Constitution does not specifically delegate the authority to the United States (Union) to Enforce (envoke) the Law then this authority has been given over to the States because the United States Constitution also says “nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
My Law Professor stated that this is what he was taught in the Law School that he attended and that this is what is taught in all Law Schools and Police Academies. Therefore it must be true.
My problem here is that in the United States Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 says “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”
As it is clearly stated that “The Congress shall have Power…. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute (enforce) the Laws of the Union (United States)”.
You may use this defense in any Court against any Ticket issued you as well as against any charge that you have been Arrested for.
If you were not arrested by the Militia when called forth to execute the Laws of the Union then you were not constitutionally legally arrested.
We are taking into particular interest here in this subject matter from the lowest level of Law Enforcement being the Village and or Township Police to City Police, County or Parish Police or Sheriff, State Police or Troopers and of course Federal levels which include U.S. Marshall, F.B.I., D.E.A., Homeland Security, Secret Service, N.S.A., C.I.A. and any other secret Police that may be in existence for those conspiracy theorists who may be reading this.
None of these Law Enforcement Agencies and or Law Enforcement Departments is Constitutionally Legal to enforce any Laws.
The United States Constitution delegates solely the right of Law enforcement to the Militia and only when Congress calls them forth to do so.
Disclaimer:
You are welcome to test this understanding of the Law and the United States Constitution at your own risk. I denounce and refuse any and all liability as to someone else’s actions that they may take after reading this my understanding of the Law and the United States Constitution.
This was a pretty snazzy discussion – until that bogus post from lawdogpatriot who is obviously a disgruntled “Texas patriot” who just can’t stand it that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution in a manner different from his own unenlightened interpretation.
What gets me is this law firm shelled out $30,000 and they got a shoddy web site with stock imagery, and that not well thought out obviously. Clearly, whoever selected those photos had no clue how to present the firm to the public. The copy is rife with misspellings, which to me spells only one thing: carelessness. And for that amount of money we would happily have gone through the steps of submitting the site to the State Bar of Texas for the firm.
The takeaway from this? True value of good web design is not measured by its cost. Talk about lawyers having a bad reputation. This gives web designers a bad reputation too.
Joni Mueller
Pixelita Designs
Houston, Texas